PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 12
Geologist: A geological fault in the mountain under(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AIn a few(8 more words not shown)
- BThe scientists' investigation(12 more words not shown)
- CThe proposed facility(13 more words not shown)
- DThe scientists' investigation(12 more words not shown)
- ENuclear waste could(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The fact that a leak might occur thousands of years from now doesn't automatically make it harmless. The passage says the waste can remain dangerous for up to 25,000 years. A leak after a few thousand years could still occur while there is something dangerous to release.
So I understand why the geologist is concerned. But how likely is it that this mountain has a fault? Describing a disastrous possibility doesn't by itself tell us how likely that possibility is or what investigation it warrants.
Imagine saying we should search a closet every night because a dangerous intruder could be hiding there. The danger would be serious if present, but we'd still want to know why we should think an intruder might be there. That is the kind of probability question I initially want answered here—not a claim that nuclear waste and a closet pose comparable risks.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the recommendation to investigate before placing the facility. My first thought is evidence that a geological fault is a realistic concern. Let's also stay open to another reason the proposed investigation would help with the decision.
Working the answers
- A
The possibility that human civilization might not exist thousands of years from now gives us no added reason to conduct this investigation. It doesn't establish that the geological danger is real or that the investigation is useful. We shouldn't treat that distant possibility as support for the recommendation.
- BCorrect
This supports the investigation in a different way from my initial prediction. It doesn't say a fault is likely; it says the investigation will settle whether there is one.
That gives the proposed step a clear payoff. The geologist is worried about an unknown geological feature that could make the storage site dangerous, and the investigation would resolve that uncertainty. We don't have to establish that this alone proves the policy best. Knowing that the proposed study can answer the relevant question makes the recommendation better supported.
- C
What the facility was originally intended to store doesn't tell us whether this mountain should be investigated before storing nuclear waste there. A changed purpose could raise other design questions, but C supplies no connection between the original purpose and the presence or detection of geological faults.
- D
A dramatic increase in cost is a consideration against undertaking the investigation, not a reason supporting it. The investigation could still be worthwhile despite the cost, but D doesn't establish its benefit. It adds a burden for the recommendation to justify.
- E
Temporary storage doesn't tell us whether an investigation is useful or needed before placing the facility. It might change how long the waste faces the geological risk, but the answer gives no timing or safety facts that favor the proposed prerequisite. B directly establishes a benefit of investigating.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.